news details |
|
|
| JD, CAHO Animal Husbandry involved in backdoor appointments discharged | | | Jammu, October, 09:- In two criminal revision petitions filed by the VOJ against the order passed by Special Judge Anticorruption on January 29, 2005 whereby discharged the accused persons at the stage of framing charge for want of prosecution sanction, Justice YP Nargotra of J&K High Court Jammu Wing after hearing Additional Advocate General Mr. BS Salathia appearing for the VOJ and Advocate HP Sharma appearing for the accused persons allowed the both revision petitions and set-aside the order of Trial Court and the case remitted back to the trial Court for framing the charges against the accused namely ON Raina the then Joint Director Poultry Jammu and B L Sharma the then Chief Animal Husbandry Officer for commission of offences which it has found prima-facie made out and try them in accordance with law.
Justice YP Nargotra while setting-aside the order of trial Court observed that in these two revisions the question arises for consideration is “whether u/s 6 of Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction is necessary for taking cognizance against a public servant, who has Retd from service in respect of offence committed by him while he was in service?” The Trial Court by its order January 29, 2005 though held that a prima-facie case of abuse of official position by the accused causing undue pecuniary gain and corresponding loss to state is made out, yet has discharged the accused/respondents, solely on the ground that no sanction has been accorded by the competent authority for their prosecution. In this regard the Trial Judge quoted various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court J&K.
Court further observed that contention of Mr. B S Salathia appearing for the VOJ that the view expressed by the Trial Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Kali Charan Mahapatra Vs State of Orissa in which “SC observed that a public servant, who committed the offence, while he was a public servant is liable to be prosecuted whether he continuous in office or not at the time of Trial or during the pendency of the prosecution”. Upon this Justice YP Nargotra further observed that the proposition of law that for taking cognizance against a person, who has Retd from service, previous sanction of the competent authority is not necessary, stands firmly settled. In this view of the matter the discharge of the accused respondents cannot legally be sustained and is therefore set-aside.
According to the case against accused persons that in the year of 1997 Vigilance Organization has registered a case on the complaint in which it has been alleged that accused J L Raina the then Director Animal Husbandry appointed 15 candidates on adhoc basis after accepting bribe money between Rs 25000 to 50,000/- from each candidate. It was further alleged that accused purchased substandard micro-scopes exceeding the actual requirement were not as per the sample. During the investigation it has been revealed that as Joint Director J L Raina appointed 36 class IV by sheer abuse of his official position, accused O N Raina in his capacity of Joint Director Poultry Jammu appointed class IV without having competence, accused BL Sharma the then Chief Animal Husbandry Officer Udhampur is alleged to have appointed one candidate illegally. It is worthwhile to mention here the VO presented various Challan against accused persons during the pendency of the case, the then Director JL Raina expired. The then Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu dismissed the cases and discharged the accused at the stage of framing charge for want of mandatory sanction for prosecution against the accused, against this order VOJ filed review petition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
